JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners have put forth prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D), which read as under: (B) By way of appropriate Writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 issued by the District Collector, Latur, by which, the application for allotment of land in favour ex-servicemen is rejected, which is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 07.08.1998 (sic. 08.07.1998) (Annexure-B) (C) By way of appropriate Writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly direct the respondents to allot the agricultural land in favour of the petitioners in view of the application made by the petitioners being ex-servicemen pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998. (D) By way of appropriate Writ, order or directions in the like nature, this Hon’ble High Court may kindly hold and declare that, the petitioners are entitled for the allotment of the land being the legal heirs of ex-serviceman Late Shri Manohar S/o Dattatraya Shrungare, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Manohar Dattatraya Shringare. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the biological children of Manohar. Manohar has passed away on 13.04.2021. Manohar joined the Armed Forces as Havildar. He superannuated in November 2006 and was issued with a certificate from the Mahar Regimental Centre (Security Training Certificate) dated 30.11.2006. He had joined in 1982. He had put in 24 years in employment. 4. The state of Maharashtra has issued a Government Resolution dated 28.07.1972, by which, the members of the Armed Forces and the Ex-servicemen or their Society was eligible for a parcel of land for constructing their residences. This was followed by another Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998, providing for a parcel of land to such Society of the Ex-servicemen for construction of residences. The Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998 reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 5. Deceased Manohar had moved an application in 1992, seeking allotment of 5 acres of gairan land in Gharni Shiwar, Gut Nos. 529 and 542. The said application was not considered. Manohar was in service at the time of making such application. Another application was made on 20.02.2004 by Manohar to the District Collector. Deceased Manohar had moved an application in 1992, seeking allotment of 5 acres of gairan land in Gharni Shiwar, Gut Nos. 529 and 542. The said application was not considered. Manohar was in service at the time of making such application. Another application was made on 20.02.2004 by Manohar to the District Collector. He reiterated the same demand for 5 acres of gairan land. Even that application was not considered. He then made an application on 14.11.2017, setting forth the same demand. Since it was not considered, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 15024/2017, which was disposed off, with a direction to the District Collector to decide the pending application of the petitioner. Thereafter, his application was rejected by an order dated 19.03.2018. He preferred Writ Petition No. 5485/2018, challenging the rejection. By an order dated 06.01.2020, Manohar was permitted to submit a fresh representation to the District Collector for allotment of land for earning his livelihood. On 31.01.2020, relying upon a decision dated 28.01.2011, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396 and the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, which was introduced in the light of Jagpal Singh (supra), the application of Manohar was rejected, concluding that, he is not eligible for the allotment of 5 acres of gairan land. 6. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. The learned A.G.P. relies upon the Judgment in State of Orissa and Others vs. Premalata Mohapatra (Dead), through LRs. 2021 SCC Online SC 1052. 7. Having reproduced the Government resolution dated 08.07.1998, it is apparent that the allotment of land to an Ex-serviceman was not for earning of livelihood or for agricultural or farming activities. The land was to be allotted only for residential purpose. Apparently, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when this Court passed the order dated 06/01/2020. What was cited before this Court, was another Government Resolution of the same date, viz. 08/07/1998, which permitted grant of a parcel of land, either for residence purpose or for agriculture purposes only to the Gallantry Awardees of the 1962 or the 1965 Wars. This Government Resolution dated 08/07/1998 reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 8. What was cited before this Court, was another Government Resolution of the same date, viz. 08/07/1998, which permitted grant of a parcel of land, either for residence purpose or for agriculture purposes only to the Gallantry Awardees of the 1962 or the 1965 Wars. This Government Resolution dated 08/07/1998 reads as under: xxx xxx xxx 8. It is specifically set out in the said Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998, that such parcel of lands can be allotted to the Gallantry Awardees of the 1962 Indo-China War and the 1965 Indo-Pak War. Such Gallantry Awardees or those, who suffered grievous injury and became disabled or survivors of those who met with death, could make such applications even through the immediate family members or the survivors of such Gallantry Awardees. 9. In State of Orissa and Others vs. Premalata Mohapatra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the facts and concluded in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 as under: “10. In subsequent information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 received on 23.11.2009, it was inter-alia stated as under: “(c) Deployment for the period from 20 Oct 1962 to 31 Jan 1964. As per service record held in this office, the details of posting during the year 1962 to 1964 as under: (i) No entry made in sheet roll regarding deployment from 20 Oct 1962 to 14 Nov 1962. He was transferred to reserve on 15 Nov 1962 and recalled with effect from 28 Feb 1963. In this connection, a photocopy of Central Water and Power Commission, Godavari Gauging Division Letter No. GGD/CB-3/6928 dated 06 Nov 1966 and MT Wing and Records, Aurangabad letter No. 6581649/69/RES dated 24 Nov 1965 are enclosed. (ii) 28 Feb 1963 to 15 Apr 1963 at Adm Bn, ASO Centre (South) (taken on supernumerary strength). (iii) 16 Apr 1963 to 08 Feb 1964 at 693 Amb Platoon ASC. (iv) 09 Feb 1964 to 20 Oct 1964 at MT Depot Wing, Aurangabad.” 11. From the perusal of the information furnished to the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the deceased has not worked in forward area during the relevant period from 1962 to 1964. He discharged field service from 27.2.1955 to 17.12.1956. As per the subsequent information, he was transferred to reserve on 15.11.1962 and recalled w.e.f. 28.2.1963. Thus, he was not deputed in the forward area during the relevant specified period. He discharged field service from 27.2.1955 to 17.12.1956. As per the subsequent information, he was transferred to reserve on 15.11.1962 and recalled w.e.f. 28.2.1963. Thus, he was not deputed in the forward area during the relevant specified period. Thus, the deceased husband of writ petitioner did not satisfy the basic requirement of having served the nation during the period of aggression from 1962 to 1964. The entire claim is based upon misleading assertions to which the officers of the State Government also provided a helping hand. Therefore, the contentions of the writ petitioner are not sustainable for the reason that the deceased had never worked in the forward area during the specified time period.” 10. We cannot look beyond the scope of both the Government Resolutions, which are dated 08.07.1998. If a person is not entitled for a parcel of land, being out of the purview of the Government Resolution, we cannot indulge in showing misplaced sympathy and grant a parcel of land to every Army personnel, the moment he retires from service. It is crystal clear that the Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998 issued with reference to the 1962 and 1965 wars, makes a provision to grant Government land for residence purpose or agricultural purpose to those who are bravery awards recipients. This Government Resolution has nothing to do with a soldier, who has retired from the Forces and is not a bravery award recipient. The other Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998, which refers to the earlier Government Resolution dated 28.07.1972, pertains to allotment of a small portion of land for residence purposes to an employee of the Armed Forces. This Government Resolution does not provide for allotment of agriculture land to an army man, who has retired at the age of superannuation and is unconnected with a gallantry award. As such, the present petitioner cannot be granted land for agricultural purposes, which he has been consistently demanding. 11. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, one Smt. Lalita Chandrakant Kulkarni, who is the mother of an Ex-serviceman, is granted benefit of this Government Resolution. The petitioner is unaware, as to whether the son of the said lady is a gallantry awardee. He submits that the petitioner only knows that the said lady was granted 2 Hectors of land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity. 12. The petitioner is unaware, as to whether the son of the said lady is a gallantry awardee. He submits that the petitioner only knows that the said lady was granted 2 Hectors of land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 08.07.1998. The petitioner, therefore, seeks parity. 12. As noted above, we do not desire to travel beyond the Government Resolution. If Smt. Lalita Kulkarni has been granted a parcel of land dehors the Rules, we have no reason to grant parity to the petitioner, by ordering allotment of land to the widow and her grown up children, who are now above 30 years of age, merely because the Government may have allegedly indulged in an irregularity. 13. In view of the above, we do not find that this petition can be entertained. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.